Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Nottingham Trent University DfES Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans (ILPs) Section 1: Executive Summary This report outlines and evaluates the Nottingham Trent University (NTU) ILP project with three local partner colleges: Burton College, Peoples College and West Nottinghamshire College. A Portfolio of Professional Practice is presented as an appropriate ILP model for responding to the Success for All reform agenda, with recommendations that the underpinning processes of reflection and planning also be revisited and improved. A further focus on Continuing Professional Development (CPD) has led to the recommendation that new channels of communication and collaboration need to be established between initial teacher training (ITT) and HR/Staff Development to ensure a shared understanding of CPD and a seamless transition for trainees from ITT to CPD. NTU believe that this is key for the success of the teacher reform strategy and suggest that a coherent professional development process, which is owned by both ITT and HR and uses shared documentation to record that process, will change the culture of the organisation as ‘engaged’ trainees become ‘engaged’ employees, in terms of CPD. This report also draws on the experiences of four college centres, within a project collaboration led by NTU: Blackpool and the Fylde College, Craven College, Newcastle College and Tower Hamlets College. Each has presented its own project evaluation reports.

Section 2: Background Information and Context Nottingham Trent University emerged as a university in 1992 but its roots go back a long way, with the School of Art and Design being established in the 1840’s. With over 25,000 students it is one of the largest universities in the UK, offering a wide range of courses across three campuses, City, Clifton and Brackenhurst. There are ten academic Schools within the university, each with their own area of specialisation. The School of Education is based at Clifton and offers, amongst other areas, Primary, Secondary and Post-compulsory initial teacher education and training. 2.1 Original Project Brief

The aim of the project was to investigate and trial ways of identifying and tracking an initial trainees’ starting point; developmental action points; continuing action plan and CPD needs, in order to create a portfolio of practice which would enable them to remain in good standing in relation to their practice. The objectives were to: 1. produce paper based and ultimately electronic versions of: - an initial assessment tool - continuing individual learning plan

1

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

2. produce a set of materials for ITT providers to use and support their trainees in developing their ILPs 3. make recommendations for links with colleges’ HR systems in order to track and monitor professional development with a view to remaining in good standing. The original proposal included the University and four of its seven partner colleges; three partner colleges piloted the materials with a fourth continuing as part of the focus group. The project team and representatives from these partner colleges comprise that Focus Group.

2.2

The Project

In addition to our own project, Nottingham Trent University (NTU) was asked to lead a collaboration with four college centres, each with their own ILP projects: Blackpool and the Fylde College; Craven College; Newcastle College and Tower Hamlets College. To avoid confusion, we will use the term college centres to refer to the four colleges that comprise the collaboration and the term partner colleges to refer to the colleges that have been part of the NTU ILP project. 2.2.1 Local context NTU validates and provides initial teacher training (ITT) across a wide range of centres, offering a one year, full-time, pre-service PGCE/Cert.Ed.:PCE and a two year, part-time in-service PGCE/Cert.Ed.: PCE. The first year of the part-time in-service programme is offered in seven partner colleges, some of whom also offer year two. The full time pre-service programme is offered at NTU and franchised by licence at a partner college. For this project we have focused on pre-service and in-service PCGE/Cert Ed trainees from NTU and from three of these seven partner colleges: Burton College, People’s College and West Nottinghamshire College. South Nottingham College was unable to fully engage but has been represented on the focus group. A professional development plan was in place on both the full-time and parttime programmes before the pilot project. Our students represent a broad range of prior learning and experience, professional contexts, individual needs and expectations, and different levels of knowledge about the sector. We saw the pilot project as an opportunity to improve resources and processes relating to trainees’ reflective practice and action planning. 2.2.2 Summary of approaches used in the project: • A project team comprising an NTU ITT course leader and an ex-HR manager from the PCE sector; we felt that this combination was particularly appropriate in the context of the project’s CPD focus. The project team leader was also Project Manager for the collaboration. • A focus group with representatives from all four partner colleges and the NTU project team. Its main functions were to: provide a consultation forum for devising and editing materials pilot the materials and gather evidence, for evaluation, from tutors and trainees using them 2

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

• • •

provide a forum for evaluating the questionnaire results and student/tutor feedback; discussing the findings; helping to identify key factors and significant trends, particularly in the processes underpinning the materials; evaluating the Portfolio of Professional Development and offering ideas on further development contribute to identifying ways in which the materials and supporting processes could be effectively implemented in ITT programmes for 200607. Questionnaires were administered in August 2005 and June 2006. We used evaluation from the initial questionnaire to inform the design of the initial assessment tool and ILP and of the interview questions/briefing sheets used in subsequent meetings. The final questionnaire helped us to identify the impact of the new materials/processes and provided further recommendations for improvement. A steering group was in place to oversee the project; it comprised members whose areas of expertise embrace research and initial teacher training. Interviews were carried out with two of the partner colleges’ Human Resources (HR) departments and their ITT teams A student focus group was held in June 2006 to explore, at a deeper level, the findings and trends identified through the project. We also presented the revised PDP??? for evaluative comments. This is the group that appears on the NTU Case study. Summary of project model: The project ‘products’ are: • An initial assessment tool which is paper-based but can be stored and completed electronically and is used as self-assessment by trainees. Its three sections are: A: Personal Skills and Attributes - based on the related section in the FEnto standards; B: Study Skills - based on a selection of minimum core standards and general study skills; C: Teaching and Learning - outlines a range of strategies that trainees could use. We have provided tutor guidance notes to outline our rationale for its design and implementation. • A Portfolio of Professional Practice which is a loose-leaf portfolio, very much on the line of a CPD portfolio. It contains a suggested content with supporting materials for different sections. It is intended to be flexible and have the capacity to be personalised by an individual trainee; revised to suit an individual programme and adapted to be compatible with an individual provider’s existing CPD processes. We have provided a tutor introduction to outline our rationale for its design and implementation and materials which will support tutor and students in developing the underpinning skills. This includes guidance on action planning, including the use of SMART targets.

2.2.3

3

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

A literature review which provides a theoretical framework for three areas that underpin ILPs: reflective practice; facilitating and recording professional development; CPD. A case study which captures elements of the ILP process using video footage from each of the five centres in the collaboration. It follows a journey: from initial assessment and support identification (Tower Hamlets College); to a ‘paper-based’ ILP presented on-line (Newcastle College); to an e-ILP which still requires paper-based evidence for awarding bodies (Craven College); to an e-ILP on Moodle (Blackpool and the Fylde College); through to the transition from ITT to CPD (Nottingham Trent University).

2.2.4 The end goal The end goal of the project is based in its original aim: to produce a ‘portfolio of practice’. However, we have identified several factors which underpin this project aim and which we see as part of the end goal; • to identify ways to create conditions on ITT programmes which allow trainees to engage effectively in reflective practice; • to identify a starting point for the introduction of the ILP onto ITT programmes, especially if it is to become a long-term document; • to identify ways to better support trainees as they transfer from ITT to CPD. In addition, the experience of being part of a collaboration has impacted on us in several ways which have broadened our views and deepened our understanding. Whilst not an ‘end goal’, in itself, we do report on these unexpected outcomes. Section 3: Models/approaches developed 3.1 Methodology The project team has maintained a reflective approach throughout the project and has encouraged reflective dialogue within focus group meetings, interviews and the student focus group. We have brought to these groups new perspectives gained from the collaboration but also from our desk research which has allowed us to consider theoretical frameworks underpinning the projects. Various factors led us to amend the original methodology, particularly to allow us to focus on processes as well as documentation: • the original personal development plan was retained for 74 trainees on the NTU in-service programme, to serve as a control group; • a student focus group was used instead of individual interviews; • a literature review was included to enhance the collaborative report; • a larger sample for both the initial and the final questionnaires was used to capture a broader range of trainees’ views.

4

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

3.1.1 Needs assessment The project team consulted with the focus group on an initial questionnaire which we hoped would: • identify the experience and perceptions of in-service and pre-service trainees on: action planning; professional development journals (PDJs); support for the reflective/action planning process; transition to CPD. • identify any factors that could improve ITT curriculum and delivery • identify any unexpected outcomes from statistically significant data. We administered it by post to 311 in-service and pre-service trainees from the academic year 2004-05 in late July/early August and included stamped addressed envelopes to encourage responses. 119 out of 311 trainees responded, a return rate of 38% against the 33% hoped for in the original bid. We presented a summary of these responses to the steering and focus groups and used the information to: inform the design and implementation of the IAT and ILP; identify ways of supporting the reflective/action planning process and facilitating effective personal and professional development; identify factors that might inform a seamless transition from ITT to CPD at the end of programmes. The data from this and the final questionnaire is presented in Appendices 1-3 of this report We used a brief questionnaire to carry out face to face interviews with HR/staff development managers in two of the partner colleges in order to investigate the needs of staff and the organisation in relation to ILPs and CPD. We were also interested in exploring the interface between ITT and HR so the ITT teams were also present. 3.1.2 Piloting the proposed materials In September 2005, we provided NTU tutors and the partner colleges with hard copies of the Initial Assessment Tool (IAT); we also provided tutors with guidance notes explaining the design rationale and making suggestions for administering the tool. Also in September 2005, we provided hard copies of the ILP to the NTU pre-service group and to the three partner colleges. This document was titled Professional Development Guidance and additional tutor guidance notes were provided to support tutors in understanding the design rationale and identifying effective ways of supporting trainees in planning and reflective practice. These materials were evaluated in a variety of ways. 3.1.3 Evaluating the materials Pre-service questionnaire and session We gave the NTU pre-service group a short questionnaire about the initial assessment tool (IAT) which we used a as a basis for discussion and to explore their answers in more detail. 33 out of 35 trainees found the IAT useful in informing an action plan; of these, 67% felt that it provided useful areas for focus, such as personal development and teaching strategies and 24% that its value lay in providing ideas to work from rather than having to ‘start from scratch’. The remaining 9% of

5

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

those who found it useful suggested that it helps to track change/progress and provides in-depth self-evaluation. Some suggested that the IAT could be designed to be used at different points in the year – perhaps using different sections at different points. Focus group To evaluate the effectiveness of the IAT and ILP, we sent out a short questionnaire to course tutors which provided a focus for discussion for the focus group in November and the steering group in March. The main outcomes were the views that: • a portfolio would be a better model of ILP as it could reflect the underpinning process of planning and reflection in a way that disparate pieces of paper cannot; • there are tensions between detailed and prescriptive documentation that ‘direct’ the trainee and materials that are more open and flexible ; • a selection of different proforma could be provided so that trainees could select those that were relevant and so individualise their own ILPs; • the ‘long-term document’, which would go with the trainee to support CPD, would have institutional implications and HR would need to approve its use and see it as a valuable tool for supporting staff. We presented a suggested ‘contents’ for the ‘portfolio of practice’, refined it following feedback and presented it to the student forum as the Portfolio of Professional Practice in June 2006. The November focus group found the piloted ILP (the Professional Development Guidance) as an improvement on original materials and one tutor reported that the action plans from 05-06 were better than those from previous years. All centres reported that trainees had given mainly positive responses to the document. When asked how others could be encouraged to engage with the IAT, trainees suggested: • having an on-line version/interactive version on the VLP; • introducing it as a group exercise and discussing each section before completing it; • making it relevant to the individual’s own development, otherwise it’s just ‘another form;’ • using it as a discussion tool with mentor and tutor; • providing more guidance. These suggestions reinforced comments in the final questionnaire, particularly the idea of an on-going, electronic action plan. Within the collaboration, Blackpool and the Fylde and Craven Colleges used on-line assessment tools. At Blackpool, 100% of trainees used on-line literacy and numeracy assessments with a range of other assessment tools being available. This on-line approach also has advantages for tutors as they can track how and when trainees have engaged with them. Both these colleges were also able to offer a range of initial assessment activities, including learning style questionnaires which is another advantage to on-line assessment. This is a development NTU intend to use for 06-07, especially for literacy and numeracy. Student focus group Five trainees, from each NTU pilot centre, were invited to participate in the Student Focus Group; unfortunately only five responded and of those only three came on the day. The reason for this was probably the timing as it was the week before final portfolios had to be submitted; not a clever choice on our part! We used short 6

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

activities, an interview questionnaire and a whole group discussion; this session was also videoed for the collaboration’s case study. Comments from this are included in section 3.2.5 of this report. Final questionnaire A final questionnaire, based largely on the initial questionnaire, was administered by post to 340 in-service and pre-service trainees in late May 2006 with a deadline for return of early June; 109 students responded, a return rate of 32%. The results were collated for three separate groups to allow comparison of data and identify the impact of project materials: pre-service trainees; in-service trainees from partner colleges and the control group of NTU in-service trainees. The findings from this final questionnaire have been presented in three documents (Appendices 1-3). 3.1.4 Desk Research Research was intended as part of the original bid but the literature review was a response to the need for a theoretical framework for the five projects within the collaboration. We broadened the research to accommodate this and focused on reflective practice, professional development and CPD, and recording documentation and processes underpinning them. Initial searches for literature using ‘individual learning plans’ produced no academic sources; the wider themes of ‘continuing professional development’, ‘reflective practice’ and ‘professional development plans’ provided a range of literature, including comparable ‘ILP’ models for other professional bodies. The findings from this research were used to inform materials development, and support project evaluation and are presented in the Literature Review. The impact of carrying out this literature review has been significant. It has: • refined and developed notions of what constitutes an individual learning plan and what processes should underpin its development, for the project team; • led to discussion and a deeper understanding of professionalism and CPD, for the project team and the focus group; • raised issues over how to engage trainees in reflective practice and how to create the conditions in which this can take place; • contributed to the professional development of those involved, perhaps most particularly the project team. 3.2 Key findings during the pilot From evaluation of the initial and final questionnaires On the whole the final questionnaires did not reveal a significant impact for the use of the new materials except for some comparison between the in-service pilot and control groups which are summarised in the conclusion to this report. The fact that some responses in the final questionnaire were less positive than in the initial questionnaire may be due to the new ILP not being sufficiently different to the original one to have a significant impact; the tutors not being as familiar with, or not ‘owning’, the materials in the same way because they were new and the final questionnaire being sent out just as trainees were completing final portfolios for

7

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

submission against the initial questionnaire being administered in early August when they had finished their course, knew their results and had time to reflect. Guidance/clear information, underpinning processes and support are seen as key to successful action planning and reflection In both the initial and final questionnaires, we asked trainees to make suggestions on how to improve the planning and review processes for action plans. Only 1% of preservice and 2% of in-service trainees suggested changes to the actual documentation. Across related questions, an average of: 24% of pre-service and 17 % of in-service trainees commented on factors relating to clarity and sufficiency of information ‘a crib sheet of examples would have helped’ ‘students need be encouraged to see the benefit of action planning and reflection on progress, rather than seeing it as a chore’ 46% of pre-service and 29% of in-service trainees made comments relating to underpinning processes. ‘more prominence to the development of self (rather than completion of individual assignments’ ‘the concept of reflective learning needs far more time. . .’ 30% of pre-service and 41% commented on issues relating to support. ‘need more time to get to grips with it’ ‘ group discussion would have been helpful’ and ‘important information and development is gained by peer and group interaction’ In-service trainees do not have a greater understanding of action planning and reflection than pre-service trainees and need at least as much support Even though action planning is widely used in post-16 education, many in-service trainees are not confident with the process and have a perceived need for support which ITT teachers/trainers may not be aware of. Only 56% of in-service trainees reported that they ‘fully understood’ the importance of drafting an action plan with 8% not understanding it at all; 76% of pre-service trainees felt they understood. When asked about their understanding of how the reflective journal relates to professional development: 54% of in-service trainees felt they ‘understood well’ with 6% having ‘little understanding’; for pre-service trainees, 59% felt they ‘understood well’ and 8% felt they had little understanding. Tutor and mentor support are seen as key in the reflective process and in planning and reviewing action plans ‘more time with the tutor on the process’ ‘some kind of consultation with tutor then mentor [at the end of the course] and use this to feed in with student’s own reflection’ ‘more one to one tutorials’

8

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Across the two questionnaires, an average of only 39% of pre-service trainees and 32% in-service found their subject mentor ‘very helpful’ in reviewing the action plan ; an average of 17% of both pre-service and in-service found them ‘not at all helpful’. On being asked, in the final questionnaire, how the review process could be improved at the end of the course (supporting the transition to CPD) 75% of preservice responses and 39% of in-service responses indicated tutor and mentor support as being the most important factors. The Tower Hamlets model identifies support needs at initial interview and links in to mentor support for those trainees who require it. The impact on retention during the project has been significant, with an average increase in retention across the three pilot groups of 3.8%. Blackpool and the Fylde college gave trainees the choice of giving their tutors and mentors access to their on-line ILP; although some did not want to so this, others saw the advantages in terms of additional support in identifying development points for action planning. Opportunities for class-led, peer discussion is seen as important in supporting planning and reflection on ITT courses Although this was not a category on our questionnaire, there were a number of comments in the narrative about the value of peer discussion. When asked what improvements they would like to see the trainees made statements such as: ‘group reflections to discuss challenges faced in the week and how overcome them’ ‘greater sharing, possibly an on line space where trainees could compare experiences’ ‘important information and development is gained by peer and group Interaction’. We would recommend that this become part of all ITT programmes, particularly as research shows that collaboration and discussion support the development of reflective skills and lead to a deeper understanding. Those centres which use the VLP??? as part of their programmes have the additional way to provide peer discussion in the form of a discussion board. Blackpool and the Fylde College intend to introduce a group Wiki or Moodle Blog for 06-07 to further support peer discussion and sharing of ideas and experiences. 3.2.2 From evaluation of the Initial Assessment Tool (IAT) A starting point that allows trainees to identify and celebrate their existing skills and areas of competence, as well as identifying areas for development, is seen as really important part of initial assessment Trainees highlighted particular sections of the IAT as being particularly useful - the section on teaching strategies: being able to identify one’s own skills and areas of competence; a structured, on-going way to reflect on one’s own skills; a better process for self-evaluation than just being asked to self-evaluate. One pre-service trainee, who had a key management role in his ‘previous life’ found coming on to the ITT course as an ‘absolute beginner’ quite difficult. He appreciated the opportunity, through the IAT, of identifying the transferable skills he was bringing with him into the course, and into his teaching.

9

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

. . . in the past we have asked learners to put this exclusively in their own words, often unsuccessfully. The pilot materials certainly concentrate their minds on the course. (anonymous college tutor) 3.2.3 From evaluation of Individual Learning Plan A ‘booklet’ or ‘portfolio’ is a preferred model to separate pieces of paper (for different parts of the reflective and planning processes) The pilot and student focus groups supported the portfolio approach and responses to the final questionnaire suggest the need for the clarity and coherence that a portfolio would provide. Following are some suggestions made by the focus group which we intend to take forward in the portfolio and supporting processes: - having the materials on the VLP in an interactive form - the importance of ITT teachers/trainers modelling reflective practice for trainees - allowing the document to reflect the course structure so that trainees are guided through professional development processes by the materials themselves - linking the ILP and course assignments is crucial and should be made more explicit, especially in the areas of subject knowledge and subject pedagogy. We see reflective practice, facilitated by ITT teachers/trainers as being key to the success of the portfolio and to effective professional development. It is interesting to note that the college centres have addressed some of these points with their on-line ‘portfolios’. Blackpool’s model is very interactive and both Newcastle and Craven have explicit links between their ILPs and their course assignments. An ILP or Portfolio of Professional Practice must be introduced at the earliest opportunity, preferably on an individual’s first ITT programme Many in-service students see themselves as experienced teachers/trainers, so the introduction of new materials is often is seen as ‘just more paperwork to do for the course’. If a culture of reflection and planning was part of ITT from a trainee’s ‘first contact’, and the portfolio was started at that point, it would be more relevant and meaningful, as a long-term document that they would carry through their ITT and into CPD. The trainees on the student focus group saw this as a good idea and likened it to an ‘adult record of achievement’. To be successful, a long-term ILP needs to be owned by HR/Staff Development so that the transition from ITT to CPD is seamless No direct evidence can be provided for this point; it has come out of project team and focus group discussions. It requires: - HR to recognise the ITT ILP/portfolio or ITT to adapt and adopt the organisation’s CPD portfolio; - ITT and HR need to have a shared understanding of, and vocabulary for, CPD so that reflective practice and planning skills developed on ITT courses can be carried forward. Further comments are provided on this subject in section 3.2.5. 3.2.4 From desk research

10

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

ITT teachers/trainers need to understand reflection and how to facilitate it before they can effectively develop those skills in their trainees A practitioner cannot support another [in becoming a reflective professional] …if they are not aware and open themselves. (Bolton, 2005:7) We suggest that if teachers supporting trainees on ITT programmes do not fully understand or engage in reflective practice themselves, it is difficult for them to facilitate it effectively with trainees. This view is supported in the literature review and is offered as a reason why trainees do not always understand the relevance of reflection and planning or engage well in the process. It is additionally important if ITT is going to develop these skills as tools for later CPD. Newcastle College do not make the use of reflection explicit in their report and, certainly, in their initial questionnaire trainees highlight ‘targets’ as the main purpose of the ILP. This may not reflect the true picture but does serve to highlight the tension between instrumental and reflective approaches to ILPs and professional development. ITT teachers/trainers need to actively foster conditions, within their programmes and their classrooms, in which effective reflective practice can take place Research suggests that reflection has to be nurtured through appropriate activities but also by providing an environment of trust and safety in which trainees can develop. We have included ‘conditions’ in which this can take place in the Tutor Introduction to the Portfolio of Professional Practice, also the literature review explores this area in more detail. Of particular interest is the notion of providing scaffolded support so that reflective tasks are simpler at the start of the course and for trainees unfamiliar with reflection, and become more demanding as trainees gain confidence and develop reflective skills. Craven College describe the e-ILP being used in this way (p.10): an inclusive approach which builds up week by week and allows trainees to increase their confidence. 3.2.5 Transition from Initial Teacher Training to CPD The evidence for this section has been drawn from the following sources: College meetings with ITT and HR staff Questionnaires from trainees Trainee Focus Group Feedback from Partner College Meetings It is almost a section in its own right and can be seen as building on comments made through the report. As already noted, this project has concentrated on the ILP as a process as opposed to focussing on the documentation. This was partially because it was impossible to agree on a single version to meet the needs of all organisations involved and also because of an early recognition that the CPD process, as outlined in the Institute for Learning (IfL) model (http://www.ifl.ac.uk), mirrors the reflective planning process described in the NTU model. The final version of the NTU documentation is in a

11

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

loose leaf format, also downloadable electronically, and is felt flexible to meet the needs of trainees, teacher trainers and employers. During the course of project, proposals from the DfES have emerged in terms of CPD requirements for QTLS (http://www.dfes.gov.uk), as has the draft model documentation from the IfL. This reinforced our focus on the process of transition from ITT to CPD rather than the documentation. The Trainees Perspective “The majority of my time was given to planning, preparing and teaching. CPD is important, but should take this into account and be concise” Trainee questionnaire, August 2005. “ I really committed to it in the first half of the course but as workload and pressure grew I found myself hating it and first complying with the whole process” Trainee questionnaire, June 2006 From the onset we were interested to learn from the trainees whether they had truly engaged with the reflective process or had seen it as a requirement of the course. Over both years the majority of trainees who replied stated that they had engaged at least partially with the process. In our 2005 survey only 8% of pre-service trainees and 27% of in-service trainees stated that they were almost or fully compliant. These figures for 2006 were 10% and 16% respectively. It is interesting to note that an eILP does not immediately lead to total engagement. Blackpool and the Fylde College have found that, whilst 92% of trainees on their pilot courses accessed their e-ILP, only 20% of pre-service and 60% of in-service trainees used it for reflective target setting and action planning; the rest opted for a paper-based version. We also asked our trainees about the conditions which made the process effective and more likely to lead to commitment. Over the two years the top five important conditions cited were: Table 1. Top 5 conditions cited as necessary for commitment to reflection and action planning
Pre-service 2005 Tutor support Mentor support Access to information Use of IT In-service 2005 Line Manager support Access to info/resources Tutor support Mentor support Remission of Time Pre- service 2006 Tutor support Mentor support Access to info/resources Remission of time and use of IT (joint) In-service 2006 Mentor support Tutor support Access to info/resources Use of IT In-service 2006 Control Group Tutor support Mentor support Remission of Time Access to info/resources Staff Development

Line Manager support

Line Manager support

12

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

This reinforces previous observation on the importance of tutor and trainee support for ITT trainees. We asked, in 2005 and 2006, what recommendations trainees had for encouraging people to engage in the reflective process; they suggested: “Action planning should provide opportunities for personal and professional growth. More time in discussion with tutors to create dynamic goals would be useful”. Trainee questionnaire. August 2005. “Find time from employer, develop a structured, methodical approach, encourage interest and support from mentors and tutors” Trainee questionnaire 2006. Our student focus group confirmed that the single factor that would encourage engagement was time by way of remission/abatement. The provision of time for CPD has been addressed by the DfES in the recommendation of a minimum of 30 hours per year. However, there has been some concern expressed that staff will see this as a requirement to ‘clock up’ the hours rather than an opportunity to develop and the focus group raised some concern as to how these hours can be fitted in resourced. There is evidence from the questionnaires that employees from outside FE Colleges see little relevance in the reflective process and see it as a FENTO/course requirement, as expressed by one 2005 trainee, “It might be useful and valuable to take into account more individual trainees/objectives and work environment. Although the FENTO standards need to be covered…the diversity of backgrounds and individual agenda meant that the uniformity of the course left them feeling alienated and questioning the course relevance” This may be more about the way reflection has been presented and links made to the FEnto standards which have been perceived by the wider learning and skills sector, as more about colleges. “Paperwork too prescriptive. Prefer mind mapping for planning” Trainee questionnaire. August 2005. “I feel that this is something that has to come from yourself and therefore should require minimal assistance from others” Trainee questionnaire 2006. “For me reflection is excellent, the journal is a pain” Trainee questionnaire 2006. On the question of who is responsible for CPD and who should own and maintain the CPD evidence, it was unanimously felt to be with the individual. This was particularly expressed by pre service trainees looking for their first teaching post and where they are not sponsored by an employer, such as part time lecturers and portfolio workers with a variety of employments over the course of their careers. The Trainee Focus Group also expressed the opinion that the proposed Portfolio of Professional 13

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Practice would be useful to take along to recruitment and promotion interviews akin to Records of Achievement. The ring binder format would address issues around confidentiality in that certain documents could be shared with employers for appraisal purposes and others could remain private. Blackpool and the Fylde College highlighted this issue of ownership when they asked their trainees if they would allow access to their ILP for tutors and mentors. Reaction was very mixed; some students felt that access rights would ‘compromise the personal nature of their Journal’ and others that ‘they would not be able to express themselves . . in an open, honest and candid manner.’ When they gave their trainees the choice, 50% chose to allow access and 50% chose not to. At the end of the course trainees are required to complete a CPD plan. These are assessed, but are not taken into the workplace. If we are to assume that CPD begins at recruitment and should be seamless, trainees need to be encouraged to take this action plan as springboard for next stages of development and action points fed into support and supervision/appraisal process back in the workplace. “I think many trainees coming into the programme do not fully understand what this entails and tutors sometime assume that they do. It may be useful to show trainees some models or previously written action plans to give them a better idea” Trainee questionnaire 2005 “On line planning – perhaps using VLP – where personal files used but tutor has access – online reviews could then be conducted – using email too” Trainee questionnaire 2005 The 2005 trainee questionnaire contained several quotes such as those above suggesting that it may be useful to provide trainees with examples/samples of the documentation. In the pilot year that was resisted for fear of being prescriptive. When similar feedback was obtained in 2006 the decision has been taken to include examples in the portfolio which tutors can use to stimulate discussion. Although the original plan suggested the development of an electronic version of the ILP, it became obvious to the Project Team that a number of pilots were specifically focusing on this already, including three centres within the collaboration. Blackpool and the Fylde College has developed a Moodle site which provides ITT trainees with an interactive experience supporting reflection and ILP development; Craven College has developed a Moodle site reflecting course structure and taking the student through the process in a more formal way; Newcastle College has developed an eILP which focuses on monitoring and tracking. Each of these provides answers to some of the trainees’ suggestions made in the NTU pilot for use of ILT and the VLP. It is intended to extend the use of ILT for 2006-07 by providing electronic materials, developing the VLP, using some of the ideas sourced from the college centres and introducing a blog on the NTU web page to facilitate a professional network for ITT trainees, particularly to support subject specialism. The Employers Perspective

14

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

The research in this area has centred solely on FE Colleges due to time constraints. It must be acknowledged that trainees are drawn from a range of employers (such as NHS, Police, Fire, Ambulance services, private training providers) and their views have been captured in the questionnaires. From the discussions with HR Managers in Colleges, it would appear that the majority of recordable CPD is attendance on courses or events. Most of the Colleges interviewed held staff development days to consider specific topics. We found little evidence of Colleges having an organisational strategy to provide conditions to support reflection as a tool for CPD. Indeed some teacher trainers in the pilot reported that historically their contracts had provided time for scholarly activity and research, but this had now gone. There may be an expectation from employers that ITT programmes will produce reflective practitioners, yet the overwhelming evidence from our questionnaire analysis and talking to trainees, is that a large number undertake the activity to gain the qualification. A large number did feel they may carry forward the process, but they would need the conditions (time and workloads) to enable them to do so successfully. “It helped to write down the action plan and critical incidents throughout – made me reflect and in some cases come to terms with difficult situations. Highlighted certain issues which I then raised with line manager at appraisal” Trainee questionnaire August 2005 The role of the Line Manager This appears, from trainee comments, to support compliance rather than integration; there appears to be little concern with measuring the impact of ITT in the workplace; in fact, ITT seems to operate in a vacuum. There is also little evidence that employers integrate ITT into normal support and supervision. It is likely that pressure of time is one of the reasons for this. The role of HR There are some feelings of mistrust about the true role of HR and some protection over what information (if any) is communicated to the HR department by ITT providers. There was no evidence of HEIs having meaningful communication with HR in supporting individual trainees to achieve; indeed, they are perceived, by some, as having a policing function. In asking what information they should be party/entitled to and who is responsible for providing it, our discussions with HR and staff development managers suggest there is much scope for improving the communication process between all parties responsible for an individual’s development. This is particularly so if the reflective skills for professional development are going to be developed by ITT teachers/trainers, and trainees are going to carry forward a long-term document into CPD. From the HR Managers sampled there appears to be more emphasis on compliance and budgets rather than evaluation and measuring the impact of CPD. Even in cases where HR and ITT teams have a strong working relationship and their processes are well developed, they operate totally separately as far as ITT and CPD are concerned.

15

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Mandatory requirement for CPD. The national framework is to be welcomed as a real opportunity to drive forward CPD in the wider learning and skills sector and in colleges . From the literature review we have identified a range of models for CPD and concluded that most models will fit between the extremes of engagement and full compliance. Based on our discussions and research, shown below is our model of how these extremes might result in very different structural and cultural models for Human Resources. Table 2. Possible HR structures and cultures (extremes of a spectrum) Engagement Strategic/facilitator Evaluative/Impact driven Leadership Democratic Trust Flexible Coach Individual Volunteer Developmental Compliance Administrative Task/process driven Management Managerial Control Prescriptive Gatekeeper Organisation Coerced Rewards

HR Function Approach to CPD Management Style Notion of professionalism Culture/Climate Documentation Line Managers Ownership Participants Appraisal

We would urge the DfES to take these into account when determining its final requirements for CPD in order that the initiative is owned by individual staff, HR, Line Managers and the whole organisation.

3.3 Issues arising There have been no significant issues arise during this project. The original bid intended four partner colleges to take part in the pilot but one was unable to pilot the materials; they continued as part of the Focus Group. Another partner college has undergone a restructuring process over the period of the pilot which has made engagement more difficult.

3.4 Conclusions and Recommendations 3.4.1. Conclusions At the end of the project, it is important that the materials and improved processes can be sustained and fully embedded into the PGCE/Cert Ed courses at the university and in the partner colleges. Because evidence for the impact of the piloted documentation was limited, NTU intends to pilot the Portfolio of Professional Practice in 2006-07, with its pre-service group and, hopefully, groups in two partner colleges.

16

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Feedback will be sought and evaluated, wider evaluation of other models from the DfES Phase 2 pilots considered, and a ‘best model’ rolled out in September 2007. We hope to hold a dissemination event for the NTU partnership which will explore the key findings of the project and identify ways ahead. This will also be valuable preparation for the reforms that will be implemented in 2006-07. Because the IAT and Portfolio of Professional Practice are currently in paper form and the focus is on the process which underpins them, there are a limited number of resource implications, mainly time and cost: - implementation is simple in terms of the paper-based materials and storing them electronically; - photocopying the materials and providing the portfolio (unless tutors download and provide own folders; - administering the IAT and developing the ILP within sessions; - staff training/awareness so that teams adopt a coherent approach to the materials and the reflective/action planning processes; - ITT and HR liaising on common approaches and documentation, and possibly shared staff development; - mentor training so that subject mentors are familiar with the materials and underpinning processes and understand how to support trainees; - providing on-going support for the process through tutorials and class-led discussion; Any ITT team could adapt and/or add to the materials to suit their own programme needs. Comparison of final questionnaire results between the in-service pilot and in-service control groups (Appendix 3) show a positive impact for pilot trainees of the new materials and processes: greater understanding of the importance of drafting an action plan (A1) more effective tutor support (A3) greater usefulness of the action plan in shaping professional development (A4) better understanding of the professional development process (A5) more effective mentor support (more helpful) (B4) Overall, however, there is less evidence of the impact on trainees than we would have hoped for. The greatest impact from the project has been for tutors and the project team. Clear ideas can be taken into curriculum planning, particularly in relation to reflective practice and how to create conditions to nurture it. The portfolio provides a holistic approach to professional development and tutors have materials in one document so peer discussion and collaborative working is more easily supported. Contact has been made between ITT tutors and their HR/Staff Development departments which will, hopefully, allow further dialogue to take place in which ITT can support HR in understanding the Success for All reform agenda and contributing to its implementation. Also significant, is the potential impact on the institutions themselves. If the recommendations from this project were taken forward, institutions would have a

17

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Portfolio of Professional Practice which would be recognised and owned by both ITT and HR. ITT would develop skills of reflection and planning in trainees which will support CPD and the portfolio would record real professional development, including the impact on learners. When trainees moved on from ITT, the transition would be seamless and the knowledge and skills would be in place to engage more effectively in CPD which, in turn, would impact on the quality agenda of the institutions.

3.4.2. Recommendations On programme • • • Integrate reflective practice, action planning and reflective logs/journals into the course rather than introducing them as things that have to be done to satisfy course requirements. Introduce the ILP (Portfolio of Professional Practice) in context with opportunity for class discussion, including notions of professionalism, reflection, what CPD is and how the portfolio relates to these. ITT teams should take time to understand reflection and to explore ways in which to facilitate; this includes ways in which to create the conditions that support effective reflection and professional development, including scaffolding.

Transition to CPD • Our proposal to introduce the portfolio at the earliest opportunity (ie. individual’s first ITT course) brings the CPD agenda forward. It also supports the whole development process from appointment, through initial assessment, ITT into CPD. • Use existing networks, national and regional, to bring together HEIs, teacher trainers and HR/Staff Development managers to explore improved working together and to create a seamless professional development experience for ITT trainees and member of staff. ITT courses should provide an input, on transition to CPD, at the end of the course and encourage students to take forward outstanding development needs into the workplace. Internally, HR Managers and Line Managers need to work together to provide the seamless transition from appointment to ITT to CPD. This would involve a clarification of roles and improved communication systems which also respect confidentiality. They also need to provide briefings for staff on what CPD is and how to do it The culture and structure of an organisation can influence the model for CPD that a College wishes to adopt. This can run along the spectrum from compliance, with the CPD meeting the requirements of the DfES, to full engagement with the process aimed at achieving continuous improvement. It should include integration with other quality assurance systems such as appraisal, observations, peer review, meetings, self assessment process, 18

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

course reviews etc. We see this as crucial to the success of the Success for All reform agenda. • Managers need to be convinced of the value of reflection as a development tool. We would like to see further research which can measure and evaluate the impact of reflection as a staff and organisational development tool. The findings of this could be widely disseminated to persuade managers of the benefit that reflection can bring about for real professional development and the impact on the individual and the whole organisation. Professional training providers operating in the learning and skills sector should be encouraged to seek ways for individuals to evidence CPD and its impact.

Reference:

Bolton, G. (2005) Reflective Practice (2nd ed.) London: SAGE Publications Ltd Department for Education and Skills (2004) Equipping Our Teachers for the Future: Reforming Initial Teacher Training for the Learning and Skills Sector London: DfES

APPENDICES: Appendix 1 Graphical Data on Final Questionnaire Results (June 2006) Appendix 2 Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005) and Final (June 2006) Questionnaire Results Appendix 3 Data from NTU in-service control group: Comparison of findings from Initial Questionnaire (August 2005) In-service and Final Questionnaire (June 2006) in-service control group

19

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project APPENDIX 1 Nottingham Trent University School of Education DfES Phase 2 Pilot Project: Individual Learning Plans Graphical data on Final Questionnaire Results (June 2005) Three colleges and NTU piloted the new initial assessment tool and individual learning plan on their pre-service and in-service PGCE/Cert Ed programmes. The NTU in-service course was designated a control group and continued to use the original materials and processes from the previous year. The pilot documents, with accompanying tutor guidance, were introduced at different points on each of the courses but between weeks one and five overall. The ILP was contained within a document named Professional Development Guidance which provided information and guidance on action planning and the reflective process; the Initial Assessment tool was used as a starting point for action planning but also for starting to consider personal and professional development. In May 2006, a final questionnaire was administered, by post, to all students on the college and university PGCE/Cert Ed programmes. For administrative and evaluative purposes these questionnaires were tracked for three distinct groups of students: the NTU pre-service; the colleges’ PGCE/Cert Eds and the NTU inservice control group. This was to allow: a) comparison with the in-service and pre-service results from the initial questionnaire, administered in July 2005 b) comparison between those students who had used the pilot materials and the control group who had not. The questionnaire was a shorter version of the initial questionnaire, some questions having been removed as they were felt not to be relevant for this stage in the pilot. 340 questionnaires were sent out and 109 were received back – a return rate of 32%. The results have been collated and presented on three separate documents: • Appendix 1: Graphical data on final questionnaire results (this document) • Appendix 2: Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005) and Final (June 2006) Questionnaire Results • Appendix 3: Comparison of findings from Initial Questionnaire (August 2005), In-service and Final Questionnaire (June 2006), In-service control group Summary and evaluation of the findings is within the Nottingham Trent University Project Evaluation Report.

20

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Summary of in-service and pre-service pilot groups results Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action Plan 1) A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?
Q1. How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?

Q1. How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?

fully understood partially understood not underrstood

fully understood partially understood not understood

In-service A2

Pre-service

What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1?
Q2. What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan1?
Q2. What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1?
Number of responses 50 40 30 20 10 0 a b c d e f g h i j See A2 for sources Series1

Number of responses

20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e f g h i j See A2 for sources Series1

In-service

Pre-service

These categories were a) feedback from interview; b) microteaching sessions; c) initial assessment results; d) own reflection/self awareness; e) class-led peer discussion; f) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic); g) minimum core; h) internal observation feedback (in service); i) tutorials; j) other

21

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

A3

How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan?
Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan? Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan?

excellent good satisfactory unsatisfactory

excellent good satisfactory unsatisfactory

In-service A4

Pre-service

How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development?
Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development? Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development?

very useful partially useful no use

very useful partially useful no use

In-service A5

Pre-service

(In-service students only) What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course?
Q5. What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course?
25

Number of responses

20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e f g h See A5 for types of support Series1

In-service The categories were: a) remission of time; b) line manager support; c) in-house coach or mentor; d) access to resources and/or information; e) support and supervision discussions; f) attendance payment; g) other.

22

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project A6 Suggestions to improve the initial action planning process (Qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

Section B: Drafting your second Professional Development Plan -Action Plan 2 (Pre-service students) Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan (Inservice Students) B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process?
Q1. At this stage of the course how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process?
Q1. At this stage of the course how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process?

greater understanding

greater understanding same understanding less understanding
same level of understanding less understanding

In-service B2

Pre-service

How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal?
Q2. How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal?
Q2. How useful did you find the process of completiing the reflective journal?
Number of responses 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
us e 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 -n o 9 us ef u l

Number of responses

12 10 8 6 4 2 0

Series1

Series1

-n o

er y

9 us ef ul

us e

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

-v

1

10

1 = no use 10 =very useful

1 = no use 10 = very useful

In-service

Pre-service

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful Score of 8-10 – found it very useful

10

-v

er y

1

23

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project B3 How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to the professional development process?
How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to the professional development process?
16 14 Number of responses 12 10 8 6 4 2 0
un de rs ta nd in g 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 un de rs ta 9 nd in g

Q3. How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to the professional development process?
Number of responses 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 Series1

Series1

un de rs ta nd in g

-n o

-n o

pl et e

1

1

-c

om

10

1 = no understanding 10 = complete understanding

1 = no understanding 10 = complete understanding

In-service

Pre-service

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – had little understanding Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding Score of 8-10 – understood well B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of action plan 1?
How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of Action Plan 1? Q4. How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of Action Plan 1?

very helpful minimal assistance not at all helpful

10

-c

om

pl et e

8 un de rs ta 9 nd in g

2

3

4

5

6

7

very helpful minimal assistance no use

In-service

Pre-service

24

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

B5

What sources of information did you use to draft your second action plan (pre-service students)?
Q5. What sources of information did you use to draft your second Action Plan?

Number of responses

20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e f g See B5 for sources Series1

The categories were: a) action plan 1; b) observation feedback from subject mentor; c) self evaluation of own teaching; d) own reflections/reflective journal; e) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic); f) course content/class discussions; g) other. B6 Suggestions for improving the process of review and action planning at this second stage (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

Section C: Course Completion C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you comply with course requirements?
Number of responses

Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of planning anf reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 m it e d ia nc e

12 10 8 6 4 2 0 3 5 7 1 - total compliance 9

Number of responses

Series1

Series1

-c om pl

1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited

1

1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited

In-service

Pre-service

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging well Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed

10

-c

om

25

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project C2 Suggestions for encouraging other initial teacher training students to engage fully with this process (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

C3

How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future development needs?
Q3. How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future development needs?

very useful some use no use

Pre-service C4 How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development?
Q4. How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development?
Q4. How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development?

Definitely Likely Possibly Unlikely

definitely likely possibly unlikely

In-service

Pre-service

26

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project C5 Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course?
Q5. Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course?
16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Number of responses

Series1

ch

-n o

1

1 = no cha nge 10 = significa nt cha nge

In-service
Number of responses

Q5. Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course?
8 6 4 2 0
3 5 6 7 2 4 8 ch 9 an ge ch an ge

10

-s

ig n

ifi

ca

nt

ch 9 an ge

ge

2

3

4

5

6

7

an

8

Series1

-n o

1

1 = no change 10 = significant change

Pre-service
Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change Score of 8-10 – significant change C6 What types of support do you feel were effective in supporting you in the action planning and reflective processes? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. C7 Suggestions for improving the review process at the end of the course (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

Section D: Additional information D1 Were you a pre-service or in-service student? 22 pre-service students and 54 in-service students responded to the questionnaire.

10

-s

ig .

27

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project D2 What teaching experience do you have? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. D3 Do you work for a training provider, a college of further education or an other provider? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. ‘Other’ providers cited: • Work-based trainer • Commercial company • Prison education (2) • Fire service • Police trainer • Youth justice board • Wherever work can be found D4 Number of hours worked No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. D5 Do you hold any additional responsibilities? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. D6 The educational establishment where you undertook your course No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3.

28

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project Summary of NTU in-service control group results Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action Plan 1) A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?
Q1. How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan?

fully understood partially understood not understood

A2

What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan?
Q2. What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan?
35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 a b c d e f g h i see A2 for sources Number of responses

Series1

These categories were a) feedback from interview; b) observation feedback; c) own reflection/self awareness; d) class-led peer discussion; e) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic); f) minimum core; g) internal observation feedback (in service); h) tutorials; i) other

29

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

A3

How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan?
Q3. How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan?

excellent good satisfactory unsatisfactory

A4

How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development?
Q4. How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development?

very useful partially useful no use

A5

What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course?
Q5. What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course?
20 Number of responses 15 10 5 0 a b c d e f g see A5 for types of support Series1

The categories were: a) remission of time; b) line manager support; c) in-house coach or mentor; d) access to resources and/or information; e) support and supervision discussions; f) attendance payment; g) other.

30

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project A6 Suggestions to improve the initial action planning process (Qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

Section B: Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process?
Q1. At this stage of the course how would you rate your understanding of the professionsl development process?

greater understanding same level of understanding less understanding

B2 How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal?
Q2. How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal?
Number of responses 10 8 6 4 2 0

Series1

-n o

1

1 = no use 10 = very useful

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful Score of 8-10 – found it very useful

10

-v

er y

9 us ef ul

us e

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

31

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

B3 the

How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to professional development process?
Q 3 . H o w w e ll d id y o u u n d e r s ta n d h o w th e r e fle c tiv e jo u r n a l r e la te s to th e p r o fe s s io n a l d e v e lo p m e n t p r o c e s s ?
Number of responses 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

S e rie s 1

ng

ta n

rs

de

un

o

-n

1 - n o u n d e r sta n d i n g 1 0 - c o m p l e te u n d e r sta n d i n g

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – had little understanding Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding Score of 8-10 – understood well B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of action plan?
Q4. How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of your action plan?

10

-c

om

1

pl

et

e

un

de

rs

ta

n9 di

di

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

B5

Suggestions for improving the process of review at this stage in the course (qualitative data – see Appendix 3)

ng

very helpful minimal assistance not at all helpful

32

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Section C: Course Completion C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
Q1. Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements?
Number of responses 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 co m 9 m it e d pl ia nc e

Series1

co m

-t ot al

1

1 = total compliance 10 = fully commited

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging well Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed C2 C3 Suggestions for encouraging other teacher training students to engage fully with this process (qualitative data – see Appendix 3) How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development?
Q3. How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development?

10

-f

ul ly

definitely likely possibly unlikely

33

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

C5

Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course?
Q4. Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course?
Number of responses 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0

Series1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 -s

-n o

1 = no change 10 = significant change

Students were asked to score out of 10. Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change Score of 8-10 – significant change C6 What types of support do you feel were effective in supporting you in the action planning and reflective processes?

No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. Section D: Additional information D1 D2 D3 Were you an in-service student? 33 responded to the questionnaire. What teaching experience do you have? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. Do you work for a training provider, a college of further education or an other provider? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3. ‘Other’ providers cited: • Youth service • Community college • University (2) • Trade union • WEA • NHS

10

ig ni fic

1

an 9 tc ha ng e

ch an ge

34

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

D4

Number of hours worked No significant comment at this point in the evaluation

D5

Do you hold any additional responsibilities? No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3.

D6

The educational establishment where you undertook your course No graphical data available for this question. See Appendix 3.

35

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

APPENDIX 2

DfES ILP Project: Comparison of findings from Initial (August 2005) and Final (June 2006) Questionnaire Results (The control group of NTU In-service (final questionnaire) is not included – see appendix 3)
Questionnaire questions Section A: Drafting your first Professional Development Plan (Action Plan 1) A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan? a) Fully understood b) Partially understood c) Not understood A2 What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1? a) feedback from interview b) micro teaching sessions c) initial assessment d) own reflection/self awareness e) class led peer discussion f) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) g) Minimum core h) Internal observation feedback (in-service) i) Tutorials j) Other How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan? a) excellent b) good c) satisfactory d) unsatisfactory Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service % of responses Aug 05

84 15 1

68 32 0

53 43 4

53 33 14

2 13 3 25 15 24 3 4 10 1

0 22 4 25 9 20 14 0 6 0

5 1 3 30 14 17 4 7 17 2

5 5 7 28 15 11 9 8 10 2

A3

13 59 25 3

30 44 22 4

30 34 30 6

12 45 33 10

36

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Questionnaire questions

Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 44 48 8 24 67 9

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 27 64 9 14 67 19

A4

A5

A6

How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development? a) very useful b) partially useful c) no use (In-service students only) What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course? a) remission of time b) line manager support c) in-house coach/mentor d) access to resources and/or information e) support and supervision discussions f) attendance payment g) other Suggestions to improve the initial action planning process (Qualitative data) Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. extreme comments – very positive or very negative

Q not appropriate

Q not appropriate

22 17 21 23 8 6 3

17 26 12 26 8 10 1

33 33 0 33 0

13 62 0 25 0

14 54 1 30 1

31 20 7 28 14

Section B: Drafting your second Professional Development Plan -Action Plan 2 (Pre-service students – Feb, half way through the course) Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan (In-service students – May, towards of the course)?

37

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process? a) greater understanding b) same level of understanding c) less understanding Questionnaire questions

83 13 4

73 26 0

56 44 0

52 46 2

Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 05

B2

B3

B4

B5

B6

How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal? (Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘very useful’ & 1 is ‘no use’) Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful Score of 8-10 – found it very useful How well did you understand how the reflective journal relates to the professional development process? Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘complete understanding’ & 1 is ‘no understanding’) Score of 1-3 – had little understanding Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding Score of 8-10 – understood well How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of action plan 1 and draft of action plan 2? (pre-service students) a) very helpful b) minimal assistance c) not at all helpful What sources of information did you use to draft your second action plan? a) action plan 1 b) observation feedback from subject mentor c) self-evaluation of own teaching d) own reflections/reflective journal e) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) f) Course content/class discussions g) other Suggestions for improving the process of action review and action

17 33 50

18 67 15

15 45 40

16 60 24

8 29 63

9 37 54

1 40 59

6 46 48

42 38 20 18 17 17 17 17 13 1

36 50 14 22 17 26 16 9 10 0

33 52 15 19 14 22 18 12 14 1

42 42 16 58 43 68 54 38 42 4

38

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project planning at this second stage. Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. comments – positive and negative Questionnaire questions

27 0 0 18 55

0 43 0 43 14

16 36 0 28 20

18 9 0 64 9

Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 Section C: Course Completion

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06

C1

Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements? (Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘fully committed’ and 1 is ‘total compliance’ Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging quite well Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully committed Suggestions for encouraging other teacher training students to engage fully with this process (qualitative data and initial questionnaire only) Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. comments – positive and negative How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future development needs? a) very useful b) some use c) no use How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional

8 52 40

27 46 27

10 41 49

16 48 36

C2

Q not used 25 33 0 17 25 6 40 0 30 24

Q not used

C3

40 52 8

27 59 14

35 65 0

Q not completed by in-service

C4

39

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project development plan to inform your future development? a) definitely b) likely c) possibly d) unlikely

24 36 28 12

18 50 14 18

24 43 15 18

17 38 26 19

Questionnaire questions C5 Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course? (Score out of 10 where 10 represents significant change) Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change Score of 8-10 – significant change What types of support do you feel were effective in: - making the action plan happen (initial questionnaire)? - supporting you in the action planning and reflective processes (final questionnaire)? a) mentor support b) line manager support c) tutor support d) staff development e) use of IT f) access to information/resources g) remission of time h) other (initial questionnaire only) Suggestions for how the paperwork supporting the process could be improved

Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06

0 10 90

0 42 58

1 37 63

4 34 62

C6

25 6 30 6 8 19 3 3

24 4 30 4 8 18 8 4 Q not used

13 8 24 14 11 15 12 3

17 10 27 8 11 15 8 4 Q not used

C7

Key themes:

0

17

40

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project provide examples more guidance electronic version improved processes improved documentation VI. support (final questionnaire only) Suggestions for improving the review process at the end of the course Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. extreme comments – very positive or very negative (initial questionnaire only) Suggestions for improving the experience of students eg. around IT Key themes: VI. guidance VII. underpinning processes VIII. content/proforma IX. support X. comments – positive and negative I. II. III. IV. V. 17 17 49 17 0 17 4 21 37 4

C7

Q not used 25 0 0 75 0

Q not used 15 46 0 39 0

C8

Q not used 0 82 0 0 18 7 45 3 27 18

Q not used

Section D: Additional information D1 D2 Were you an in-service or pre-service student? What teaching experience do you have? a) New entrant b) 1-3 years c) Over 3 years 25 students 22 students 94 students 54 students

70 21 8

68 14 18

3 37 60

13 35 52

41

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

D3

Do you work for, or intend to work for: a) training provider b) college of further education c) other? Number of hours worked a) full time b) part-time Do you hold any additional responsibilities? YES NO Questionnaire questions

14 64 22

4 73 23

12 74 14

15 68 17

D4

53 47

64 36

52 48

57 43

D5

0 100

4 96

59 41

51 49

Pre-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 Q not used 9 16 14 11 20 12 18

In-service % of responses Aug 05 Q not used 16 20 10 9 18 10 17

D6

(initial questionnaires only) Your preferred learning style(s) a) activist b) reflector c) theorist d) pragmatist e) visual f) auditory g) kinaesthic

D6

(final questionnaires only) The educational establishment where you undertook your course a) NTU b) Burton College c) Peoples College d) West Notts College

Q not used

100

Q not used

4 49 22 25

42

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

43

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

Appendix 3 DfES ILP Project: Data from NTU in-service control group Comparison of findings from Initial Questionnaire (August 2005) In-service and Final Questionnaire (June 2006) In-service control group
Questionnaire questions In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service Control group

Section A: Drafting your Professional Development Plan (Action Plan) A1 How well did you understand the importance of drafting an action plan? d) Fully understood e) Partially understood Not understood A2 What sources of information did you use to develop Action Plan 1? k) feedback from interview l) micro teaching sessions (initial questionnaire); observation feedback (final q.) m) initial assessment (initial questionnaire); own reflection/self awareness (final q.) n) class led peer discussion o) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) p) Minimum core q) Internal observation feedback (in-service) r) Tutorials s) Other

53 43 4

62 32 6

5 1 3 30 14 17 4 7 17 2

2 10 31 9 9 8 3 8 19 1

Questionnaire questions

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service Control group 30 34 9 38

A3

How effective was the tutor support given to you in drafting this action plan? e) excellent f) good

44

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project g) satisfactory h) unsatisfactory How useful did you find the plan in shaping your professional development? d) very useful e) partially useful f) no use (In-service students only) What types of support were provided by your employer to assist you in undertaking the course? h) remission of time i) line manager support j) in-house coach/mentor k) access to resources and/or information l) support and supervision discussions m) attendance payment n) other Suggestions to improve the initial action planning process (Qualitative data) Key themes: VI. guidance VII. underpinning processes VIII. content/proforma IX. support X. comments – positive or negative Questionnaire questions 30 6 27 64 9 41 12 16 63 21

A4

A5

22 17 21 23 8 6 3 14 54 1 30 1

26 13 31 20 4 2 4 20 20 0 30 30

A6

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service Control group

Section B Reflecting on your Professional Development Plan/action plan B1 At this stage of the course, how would you rate your understanding of the professional development process? d) greater understanding e) same level of understanding f) less understanding B2 How useful did you find the process of completing the reflective journal? (Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘very useful’ & 1 is ‘no use’) Score of 1-3 – did not find it very useful Score of 4-7 – found it quite useful Score of 8-10 – found it very useful B3 How well did you understand how the

56 44 0

53 47 0

15 45 40

9 48 43

45

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project reflective journal relates to the professional development process? Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘complete understanding’ & 1 is ‘no understanding’) Score of 1-3 – had little understanding Score of 4-7 – had quite a good understanding

1 40 59

12 32 56

Score of 8-10 – understood well
B4 How helpful was your subject mentor in supporting your review of action plan 1 and draft of action plan 2? (pre-service students) d) very helpful e) minimal assistance f) not at all helpful (only initial questionnaire) What sources of information did you use to draft your second action plan? h) action plan 1 i) observation feedback from subject mentor j) self-evaluation of own teaching k) own reflections/reflective journal l) FEnto teaching and learning standards (generic) m) Course content/class discussions n) Other (final questionnaire) Suggestions for improving the process of review at this stage in the course. (initial questionnaire) Suggestions for improving the process of review and action planning at this second stage. Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. comments – positive or negative 33 52 15 21 48 30 Q not used 19 14 22 18 12 14 1

B5

B5 B6

16 36 0 28 20

0 33 0 67 0

Section C Course completion C1 Did you fully engage with the process of planning and reflective learning or did you simply comply with course requirements? (Score out of 10 where 10 is ‘fully committed’ and 1 is ‘total compliance’ Score of 1-3 – total/almost total compliance Score of 4-7 – mainly committed and engaging quite well Score of 8-10 – fully/almost fully

10 41 49

23 32 45

46

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project committed C2 Suggestions for encouraging other teacher training students to engage fully with this process (qualitative data) Key themes: I. guidance II. underpinning processes III. content/proforma IV. support V. comments – positive or negative Questionnaire questions

6 40 0 30 24

11 50 0 17 22

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service Control group Q not used 35 65 0

C3

(Initial questionnaire only) How useful did you find the synoptic review in identifying future development needs? d) very useful e) some use f) no use (final questionnaire) (initial questionnaire) How likely are you to continue to use a continuing professional development plan to inform your future development? e) definitely f) likely g) possibly h) unlikely Overall, how far do you feel you have developed during the course? (Score out of 10 where 10 represents significant change) Score of 1-3 – little or no perceived change Score of 4-7 – some, but moderate change Score of 8-10 – significant change What types of support do you feel were effective in: - making the action plan happen (initial questionnaire)? - supporting you in the action planning and reflective processes (final questionnaire)? i) mentor support j) line manager support k) tutor support l) staff development

C3 C4

24 43 15 18

28 16 28 28

C5

1 37 63

8 52 40

C6

13 8 24 14 11 15

14 8 24 12 10 13

47

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project m) use of IT n) access to information/resources o) remission of time p) other C7 (initial questionnaire only) Suggestions for how the paperwork supporting the process could be improved Key themes I. provide examples II. more guidance III. electronic version IV. improved processes V. clearer documentation VI. support (final questionnaire and in-service/preservice only) Suggestions for improving the review process at the end of the course 12 3 13 6

Q not used 17 17 4 21 37 4

C7

Q not used

Q not used

C8

(initial questionnaire only) Suggestions for improving the experience of students eg. around IT Key themes I. electronic documentation II. tutor support/class time III. VLP use in/out of class IV. Issues of access V. Guidance VI. E-learning- modelled by tutors/used by students

Q not used 17 33 16 7 7 20

Questionnaire questions

In-service % of responses Aug 05 June 06 In-service Control group

Section D Additional information D1 D2 Were you an in-service or pre-service student? What teaching experience do you have? d) New entrant e) 1-3 years f) Over 3 years 94 students 33 students

3 37 60

4 48 48

48

Nottingham Trent University: ILP Project

D3

Do you work for, or intend to work for: d) training provider e) college of further education f) other? Number of hours worked c) full time d) part-time Do you hold any additional responsibilities? YES NO (initial questionnaires only) Your preferred learning style(s) h) activist i) reflector j) theorist k) pragmatist l) visual m) auditory n) kinaesthic (final questionnaires only) The educational establishment where you undertook your course e) NTU f) Burton College g) Peoples College h) West Notts College

12 74 14 52 48 59 41

11 69 20 55 45 44 56 Q not used

D4

D5

D6

16 20 10 9 18 10 17 Q not used 33 0 0 0

D6

49